The concept of a torrent is also the basis for some of the could technology being developed today. (We all share in the network, cpu time, and storage) So they must not want the cloud to succeed either. Now here is an interesting question, what if I took the concept of randomly stored bits of data on a local machine and kept a meta data index of that data and used this to generate more content than is actually there? Does this mean I have infringed copyright? If you think this is a fantasy look at how such systems as Dropbox or even a Data Domain deduplicating filer head work.
Sometimes we see some wisdom from the trolls (not by their purpose of course) and can use it to better refine our own points. We can also learn a lot from how those on the other side see the argument so that when it gets down to a debate that matters we seem well informed, calm, collected, and reasonable.
So the very nature of the internet (also known as the web for the very concept of linking it embodies) needs to change to reflect a law that makes little sense in regards to how due process and protected rights work in this country?
Do you check everything you have ever linked to ever constantly to ensure that 100% is not infringing? How does a party other than the content creator even know what is infringing, it normally takes a court to make the final decision in these cases? How does it help artists to eliminate any and all viral spread of their works? How does giving away copyright to a gatekeeper and then never linking to that content in any way help those artists? How does this help anyone, even the gatekeepers of content will not be immune?
yes, but as is typical the claims have been amended since then to cover things not intended in the original patent application. This is a common tactic of the worst of the patent trolls as they can point to the original filing date and not the last amended date and say, "But it wasn't obvious then." This is clearly an abuse of the system.
You can't make up a charge for a criminal case. I'd be OK with them charging him for aiding and abetting since then that would go to court and we would get a clear precedent set.
What needs to happen is for both sides to use reason and law to back up their claims.
Is it illegal to point at the crack house down the street and say "You can buy crack there"? That is all he really did. That is the closest real world example of what he did I can come up with. It shows a different location (server, crack house), distributor (other website owner, drug dealer), and even the link (hyperlink, pointing and saying).
So does this have anything to do with copyright law? Not in my opinion. If you want to go the other route, I encourage it, as it helps establish a point of law for which to have a reasoned debate.